Resource Allocation Without LimitsWeakness · CWE-770

CVE-2024-10713

HIGH · 7.5 CVSS v3.0 Published 2025-03-20
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
84/100
Remediation priority · High
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
A vulnerability in szad670401/hyperlpr v3.0 allows for a Denial of Service (DoS) attack. The server fails to handle excessive characters appended to the end of multipart boundaries, regardless of the character used. This flaw can be exploited by sending malformed multipart requests with arbitrary characters at the end of the boundary, leading to excessive resource consumption and a complete denial of service for all users. The vulnerability is unauthenticated, meaning no user login or interaction is required for an attacker to exploit this issue.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · high confidence

A Denial of Service vulnerability exists in szad670401/hyperlpr v3.0's multipart request parsing logic. Attackers can send malformed HTTP multipart requests with arbitrary excessive characters appended to the boundary parameter. The server fails to properly validate or handle these malformed boundaries, causing excessive resource consumption (likely CPU spinning or memory exhaustion) that renders the service completely unavailable.

MitigationImplement strict multipart boundary validation with length limits and character validation in the parsing logic. As an interim control, deploy a WAF or reverse proxy with request size limits and anomaly detection to filter malformed multipart requests.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify if hyperlpr is running in your environment
    Locate the szad670401/hyperlpr application process or service in your environment inventory or running processes
    Affected if The application is present and running as a service that handles HTTP requests
  2. Determine the installed version of hyperlpr
    Check the version of the installed hyperlpr package or binary - compare against v3.0
    Affected if The version is exactly v3.0 or falls within the affected range based on v3.0
  3. Verify if HTTP multipart request handling is enabled
    Inspect the service configuration or code to determine if multipart request parsing is an active feature
    Affected if The service is configured to accept and parse HTTP multipart/form-data requests
  4. Check if the service is exposed to untrusted HTTP clients
    Review network exposure settings to see if the hyperlpr HTTP endpoint is reachable from external or untrusted sources
    Affected if The service is directly exposed to network traffic without a protective proxy
  5. Inspect for WAF or request filtering in front of the service
    Review whether a WAF, reverse proxy, or API gateway with request validation is deployed before hyperlpr
    Affected if No WAF or request size limiting proxy exists between the client and hyperlpr

You are affected if you are running hyperlpr v3.0 with HTTP multipart parsing enabled and exposed directly to network traffic without request validation or size limiting in place.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement strict multipart boundary validation with length limits and character validation in the parsing logic. As an interim control, deploy a WAF or reverse proxy with request size limits and anomaly detection to filter malformed multipart requests.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
20.0 hours of engineering $3,500
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-10713 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-10713 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data